1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs asserted that C, as the plaintiffs' preference to the land of this case stated in the separate sheet, died on May 10, 1974, C jointly succeeded to the land of this case as their children, and D died without the heir, and that on December 12, 1995, registration of ownership was completed in the future of the defendant, and that C, a registration of ownership preservation, was sought for the confirmation of ownership and cancellation of ownership preservation.

A person who is assessed as a landowner in a land survey project conducted under the Decree on Land Survey under the given period shall acquire the ownership of the land in question in a primary and creative manner, and the situation shall address the starting point of the land ownership relationship.

However, notwithstanding the probability that there has been a lot of causes for change in the transaction of land and other legal relations for a long period of time near 100 years since the land situation, the former part of our society, and other significant social and economic changes, or the trend of use of land, etc., the latter part of the situation may be easily proven that the latter part of the land owner, who had the name of the situation, was able to acquire the ownership by succession, based on the comprehensive cause of succession to the right.

In light of these circumstances, in a case where a person asserts that his/her ownership was acquired by inheritance as a successor of the title holder of assessment, the identity between his/her fleet and the title holder of assessment should be strictly proved, so that the judge can have convictions as to such fact, and such fact should not be inferred without permission, even though there are circumstances to raise doubt as to such fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da45924, Nov. 26, 2009). We examine whether the plaintiffs’ prior owner C received the assessment of the instant land.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including virtual numbers), the land in this case was examined by Eul-gun E with the address of Sin-Gun Gri, and the plaintiffs' preference.